Talk:American Revolution/Esperanza collaboration discussion

Esperanza Collaboration of the Month
This is the collaboration page for November 2006's COTM: . Disuss improvements and what should be done to the article here.

COTM
This article has been selected by the Esperanza community to be the Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month, part of an effort to make Esperanza more valuable to the encyclopedia. The basic process is outlined at the project page. Our first step is to conduct the Esperanza Review, an initial review to discuss the problems with the article and find solutions. Even if you are not part of Esperanza, you are welcome to participate and help out. Our goal is to have this article at GA status by the end of the month.  Dooms Day34  9  17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Among the things that need work that I see are resectioning the whole article and original research.  bibliomaniac 1  5   Review?  18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From the list at the top of this page, it also seems like pieces of important information are missing. -- Nataly a 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It also needs a bit of reorganization, IMO. Tito xd (?!?) 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it mentions the impact of the French and Indian War in the lede, yet it doesn't mention anything about it in the rest of the article... Tito xd (?!?) 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * the issue was the aftermath of the French & Indian war which is indeed covered at "Taxation without Representation" section Rjensen 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's extremely brief... it's at most one sentence, and the text makes it read like it was solely due to European wars, not due to the desires of the British to get some of the money they spent in defending their colonies in the Seven Years War. Tito xd (?!?) 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Reorganization)
I've made a first draft of the outline of this article, but feel free to add or remove things from here:


 * 1) Lede
 * Intro goes here
 * 1) Historical context
 * 2) French and Indian War
 * 3) Acts of Parliament
 * 4) Boston Massacre
 * 5) Expansion and territorial needs
 * 6) Changes in ideology
 * 7) Social context
 * 8) Patriots/Loyalists
 * 9) Differences between colonies
 * 10) Regional differences
 * 11) Tensions increase
 * 12) Gaspee
 * 13) Boston Tea Party
 * 14) Intolerable Acts
 * 15) Patrick Henry
 * 16) Armed occupation
 * 17) First Continental Congress
 * 18) Common Sense
 * 19) War Begins
 * Main article: American Revolutionary War
 * 1) First clashes: Lexington / Concord, Siege of Boston, Bunker Hill
 * 2) Second Continental Congress
 * 3) Creation of Continental Army
 * 4) State governments rise to power
 * 5) Independence
 * 6) Declaration of Independence (must be detailed!)
 * 7) Articles of Confederation
 * 8) New York and New Jersey campaigns
 * 9) The Crisis
 * 10) Trenton/Princeton
 * 11) Political developments
 * 12) Philadelphia captured
 * 13) Saratoga
 * 14) France joins the war
 * 15) End of the war
 * 16) Rochambeau's aid
 * 17) Chesapeake/Yorktown
 * 18) Lord North resigns
 * 19) Treaty of Paris
 * 20) Aftermath

Tito xd (?!?) 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks good! Incidentally, put anything related to the ECOTM as a subsection of the main section. For the record.  Now we need to decide what to research; will we take the time to get books on this?  Should we use internet sources?   Dooms  Day34  9  22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice start. I suggest leaving the Origins section as it stands. The proposed changes are very old fashioned (like 1955), and miss the emphasis historians put on Republican ideology and Taxation without Representation.   Did Women disappear???? Rjensen 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, to an extent. Maybe not under and "origins" section, but perhaps under a new heading, or a subheading to Historical Context.  Also, as important as Commen Sense was, I think we should put it under "Tensions Increase".   Dooms  Day34  9  02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having Common Sense under a different header, or at least connected to something else makes a bit of sense, as giving it its own section makes it seems kind of out of place. -- Nataly a 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this plan looks good. This fixes the broadness of sections (one of them is just called "War"). Also, the article seems well referenced, which is good. I hate seeing those little things in superscript saying it's unsourced. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Proposed Alternate Organization Scheme)

 * 1) Origins --1775
 * 2) Military Origins
 * 3) Fr and Indian Wars
 * 4) Colonial Defenses
 * 5) other???
 * 6) Political Origins
 * 7) Parliamentary Acts
 * 8) Navigation
 * 9) Townsend
 * 10) Stamp
 * 11) Intolerable
 * 12) Other???
 * 13) Social Origins
 * 14) Semi-Independance of Colonies
 * 15) Class differences between colonies and mother country
 * 16) Differences between the colonies(north/south, new england/virgina)
 * 17) Other???
 * 18) Economic Origins
 * 19) Colonies as trade companies?
 * 20) Mercantilism
 * 21) Other???
 * 22) Leading to independance (1775-1776)
 * 23) Sons of Liberty
 * 24) Boston Massacre
 * 25) Boston Tea Party
 * 26) First Continental Congress
 * 27) First Battles (short intros for each, redir to main articles for each)
 * 28) Lexington
 * 29) Concord
 * 30) Bunker Hill
 * 31) Seige of Boston
 * 32) The Declaration of Independance (1776)
 * 33) How it was drafted
 * 34) The Royal Response
 * 35) The Parliamentary Response
 * 36) The Colonial Response
 * 37) Loyalists
 * 38) Patriots
 * 39) The first government: The Articles of Confederation (1776-1787)
 * 40) Details of the AofC
 * 41) Relations between the states
 * 42) Relations between the states & Congress
 * 43) The Continental Army
 * 44) The war continues (1776-1781) (short intros and redir to main articles for each)
 * 45) The failed defense of New York
 * 46) Chased across New Jersey
 * 47) Winter at Valley Forge
 * 48) Foreign Involvement
 * 49) On the British Side
 * 50) Hessian Mercenaries
 * 51) Indian Nations
 * 52) On the American Side
 * 53) Von Steuben
 * 54) Kocziescu (spelling?)
 * 55) Lafayette
 * 56) French Navy
 * 57) The End of the War(1781)
 * 58) Treaty of Paris
 * 59) Immediate aftermath of the war
 * 60) Influence on the French Revolution
 * 61) Continued problems with the A of C (1781-1787)
 * 62) Drafting the Constitution (1787)
 * 63) Calling of the Convention
 * 64) Compromise
 * 65) Ratification
 * 66) The Federalist Papers
 * 67) The First Election
 * 68) The Bill of Rights

A little justification for the above organization: The American Revolution is really about the entire process of the formation of the "new" republican government of the U.S.A. under the constitutions. The first seeds of this form of government really start with the first colonies (Especially in New England; Plimoth, Boston, Salem, Providence, New Haven, etc.) and the revolution really isn't over until the Constitution, in its modern form (with the Bill of Rights) is fully in place. The current article (IMHO) starts too late, and ends WAY too early. In many ways, the War was about clearing the way for the real Revolution, which occured at the Constitutional Convention. What do y'all think? --Jayron 32 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm seeing a lot of similarities in the two, so we might just want to merge the two into a simplified version. OK, first off, you didn't put a lead in, but that was probably just understood, so that's alright.  The way we have origins with the first one seems alright to me; your version would have the same info with more sections.  You missed a lot of important tensions; we need those.    I think the war section should be all one section discussing the battles without subsections, as this article isn't about the war.  But then, yours gets better in the second half.  I like sections 3+4 as they are; but you have the second phase of the war as a subsection, unintentionally, I think.  I fixed that.  It looks good, I've made a few corrects...so basically the first half of the first and the second half of the second.  I'll merge them into a new one we can discuss.  Dooms  Day34  9  22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict). I may be thinking of Bull Run, but isn't Bunker Hill almost like a nickname. I think it has another name, which is not used as much, but is the real name. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Merger)

 * OK, here is my merger idea:


 * 1) Lead (Intro goes here)
 * 2) Historical context
 * 3) French and Indian War
 * 4) Acts of Parliament
 * 5) Boston Massacre
 * 6) Expansion and territorial needs
 * 7) Changes in ideology
 * 8) Social context
 * 9) Patriots/Loyalists
 * 10) Differences between colonies
 * 11) Regional differences
 * 12) Tensions increase
 * 13) Quartering Act
 * 14) Gaspee
 * 15) Boston Tea Party
 * 16) Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts)
 * 17) Patrick Henry
 * 18) Armed occupation
 * 19) First Continental Congress
 * 20) Common Sense
 * 21) War Begins
 * Main article: American Revolutionary War
 * 1) First clashes: Lexington / Concord, Siege of Boston, Bunker Hill
 * 2) Second Continental Congress
 * 3) Creation of Continental Army
 * 4) The Declaration of Independance (1776)
 * 5) How it was drafted
 * 6) The Royal Response
 * 7) The Parliamentary Response
 * 8) The Colonial Response
 * 9) Loyalists
 * 10) Patriots
 * 11) The first government: The Articles of Confederation (1776-1787) (Main: Articles of Confederation)
 * 12) Details of the AofC
 * 13) Relations between the states
 * 14) Relations between the states & Congress
 * 15) The Continental Army
 * 16) The war continues (1776-1781) (short intros and redir to main articles for each)
 * 17) The failed defense of New York
 * 18) Chased across New Jersey
 * 19) Winter at Valley Forge
 * 20) Foreign Involvement
 * 21) On the British Side
 * 22) Hessian Mercenaries
 * 23) Indian Nations
 * 24) On the American Side
 * 25) Von Steuben
 * 26) Kocziescu (spelling?)
 * 27) Lafayette
 * 28) French Navy
 * 29) The End of the War(1781)
 * 30) Treaty of Paris
 * 31) Immediate aftermath of the war
 * 32) Influence on the French Revolution
 * 33) Continued problems with the A of C (1781-1787)
 * 34) Drafting the Constitution (1787) (Main Article: Constitution of the United States)
 * 35) Calling of the Convention
 * 36) Compromise
 * 37) Ratification
 * 38) The Federalist Papers
 * 39) The First Election
 * 40) The Bill of Rights

You like?  Dooms Day34  9  23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's good. And though this is minor, you may want to add to tensions increase the "quarter act" (not sure of exact name). It was when the colonists were forced to let the British live in their homes. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added in the Boston Tea Party. How did we forget that? T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the Quartering Act, and in fact it was rather important, it caused the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights. As for Boston Tea Party, it must have been in my merge; I copied and pasted, didn't do a whole rewrite.   Dooms  Day34  9  23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added in the Quatering Act in sequentional order. I also put in the real name of the Intolerable Acts. Apparently, the colonists called it that. It was really called the Coercive Acts. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do seem to remember something like that. OK, I think we should put this to a vote, and decide which order we're going with.

Proposal 4
Rjensen 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead (Intro goes here)
 * 2) Historical context
 * 3) Taxation plans of British Empire
 * 4) Issue of Taxation Without Representation
 * 5) Stamp Act
 * 6) Emergence of Republicanism
 * 7) Crisis in Boston
 * 8) Social context
 * 9) Patriots/Loyalists
 * 10) Regional differences
 * 11) Tensions increase
 * 12) Boston Tea Party
 * 13) Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts)
 * 14) Patrick Henry
 * 15) Armed occupation
 * 16) First Continental Congress
 * 17) Common Sense
 * 18) War Begins
 * Main article: American Revolutionary War
 * 1) First clashes: Lexington / Concord, Siege of Boston, Bunker Hill
 * 2) Second Continental Congress
 * 3) Creation of Continental Army
 * 4) The Declaration of Independance (1776)
 * 5) How it was drafted
 * 6) The British Response
 * 7) The Colonial Response
 * 8) Loyalists
 * 9) Patriots
 * 10) Ethnic and Religious subgroups
 * 11) The first government: The Articles of Confederation (1776-1787) (Main: Articles of Confederation)
 * 12) Details of the AofC
 * 13) Relations between the states & Congress
 * 14) The Continental Army
 * 15) The war continues (1776-1778) (short intros and redir to main articles for each)
 * 16) The failed defense of New York
 * 17) Washington crosses the Delaware
 * 18) Campaigns of 1777: Saratoga and Philadelphia
 * 19) Foreign Involvement
 * 20) On the British Side
 * 21) Hessian Mercenaries
 * 22) Indian Nations
 * 23) Frontier warfare
 * 24) On the American Side
 * 25) American diplomacy
 * 26) Alliance with France
 * 27) Roles of Dutch and Spanish
 * 28) Foreign officers
 * 29) Homefront
 * 30) Financial weakness of central government
 * 31) Masculinity and soldiers' roles
 * 32) Republican Motherhood and Women's roles
 * 33) Spread of Democracy
 * 34) Role of free blacks and slaves
 * 35) Southern Campaigns, 1778-1781
 * 36) Partisan Warfare
 * 37) Cornwallis and Yorktown
 * 38) The End of the War(1783)
 * 39) Treaty of Paris
 * 40) Western territoories and Indians
 * 41) The New Nation
 * 42) Influence on the World and French Revolution


 * Focuses a little too much on the war.  bibliomaniac 1  5   Review?  01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 5
A strictly chronological organization of events

Proposal 5a
Year by Year:


 * 1) pre-1775
 * 2) 1775
 * 3) 1776
 * 4) 1777
 * 5) etc.

Proposal 5b
Era-based:


 * 1) Pre-War (1620-1775)
 * 2) War-time (1775-1783)
 * 3) Post-War (1783-1789)

Proposal 6
A strictly contextual organization of events


 * 1) Causes
 * 2) Social
 * 3) Political
 * 4) Economic
 * 5) The revolution itself
 * 6) Social
 * 7) Political
 * 8) Economic
 * 9) Aftermath
 * 10) Social
 * 11) Political
 * 12) Economic

The major problem with all 4 prior proposals is that they are FAR too complicated and messy to decide what to do. Lets start with a simpler organizational scheme, and then decide details later. OK? --Jayron 32 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Organization
(see above)

Proposal 3

 * Support.  Dooms  Day34  9  00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Merger of proposals 1 & 2. More organized and more info than the others. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most historians in recent decades (like Bailyn, Wood, Morgan) have been emphasizing the IDEOLOGICAL origins of the war in terms of republicanism and taxation. In addition there has been a great deal of social history regarding women that has to be included. The article should end in about 1783. Rjensen 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That would go under social context, IMO. There's no reason why we can't add it to the outline during the editing phase. Tito xd (?!?) 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I like the merger, but would like to also see the following additions to THAT proposal: the role of Mercantilism as an economic policy, the Sons of Liberty as a major section, with the Boston Tea Party as a subsection, a few more minor changes. I think if we START with proposal 3, and work from there, we have a great start of the article.  I would still like less war and more constitution, if you ask me.  Also, I disagree with props 1 & 4 and the above comment by Rjensen, in the sense that the article should end in 1789, with the Bill of Rights, as that is the completion of the Constitution, and IMHO, that is what the Revolution was ALL ABOUT, which was the formation of a new government.  The American Revolutionary War article ends in 1783, as it should, but the Political Revolution (as opposed to the war) should be considered to continue until the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and thus continue until 1789. --Jayron 32  17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to let you know, there's no problem with editing this proposal, even when in vote. Feel free to add or remove what you want to, we can always discuss afterwards.   Dooms  Day34  9  21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support And I agree with DoomsDay. As we build up the article, there will always be some sort of obstacles and necessary improvements that were unforseen during the planning. We can always be flexible around the plan of the article.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 22:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.  bibliomaniac 1  5   Review?  01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, we need to get this rolling. By a vote of 4:1, I think we can pronounce this the guideline we'll use.  Please bear in mind that this is not strict; we can always go outside of it to work it out.   Dooms  Day349  01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doomsday. Let's write the body first and then make up the intro and conclusion. Also, since there will be a lot of changes to the article, I'm going to create a subpage of this page to write our draft, since with all the changes, a few thing will probably be messed up. Then in the end, we just copy and paste. I'm going to name it just "Draft". There's no reason for a 1, 2, 3 etc, since we can just edit the page. editor review me!-T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Draft page created at THIS PAGE/Draft . I'm going to add it to the template. editor review me!-T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, TW, I advise against that because then all the edits are not on history, and people would like to see those, methinks. Make all edits to the article, directly.  If they are really big, do it piece by piece.   Dooms  Day349  02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There would only be a few edits from us anyway. If everything is made on the draft page, all we need to do is copy and paste it. There will be no reason to look back on the history. editor review me!-T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no. WP:GFDL. Tito xd (?!?) 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's excellent. Tito xd (?!?) 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 6
Support I put two new ideas. Its far to hard for me to get my head around the organization schemes under proposals 1-4 (and I came up with one!!!). So I simplified it to our first decision: Do we go chronological or contextual in our organization. I vote for the contextual organization scheme rather than a pure chronological description. Either way, though, we need a clearer organization scheme. Once we choose one or the other general scheme, we can dick around with details later. --Jayron 32 05:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We need to think about the reader. A person looking for the events leading up to the war is going to be looking for a title similar to that.  A yearly based organization, while possible effective, IMO is not as easy for a reader to navigate than a detailed contextual one.  I still stand behind my merge, and no, that's not just because I made it... if that's what you're thinking.   Dooms  Day34  9  21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doomsday. I was recently using Wikipedia in school for a Social Studies project. I didn't have much time so I just clicked the appropriate section titles. The point is, this proposal's titles are too vague for someone just wanting to read part of the article. editor review me!-T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * THE TITLES FOR PROPOSALS 5 AND 6 ARE NOT THE SECTION TITLES FOR THE ARTICLE. Sorry that wasn't clear.  Proposals 5 & 6 are about establishing an overall framwork of organization.  Once we decide a framework, THEN we work out the section titles as appropriate.  Start small and build up is my proposal.  The problem with proposals 1-4 as they stand now is that I have a hard time wrapping my head around them.  After we pick a general organizational framework, THEN we pick section titles.  I am sorry that wasn't clear. --03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well...I think we've already detailed it well in the above propositions.   Dooms  Day349  03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Get Going!
To go along with the Collaboration of the Month thing, I think we should start drafting pretty soon. We have 10-15 days to write, revise, revise, revise (yes I know I typed this 3x), and check sp and grammar. I also think if somehow we can get more members, it would help a lot. Maybe leave a comment on the Esperanza talk page asking for experienced writers/editors for the draft, who have time to contribute. editor review me!-T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Try
American Revolution is up for its second GA nomination. --Banana04131 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)